Physical Proof that the God Exists

[Teru Wong]

With regards to the questions of atheists with the existence of the God,

I have prepared all of you with the physical proofs of the existence of the God.

From biological prospective, the God is our mother-in-common.

Although the God may not be the one you know, accept it by rationality.

The reality is not too hard, because we come from the same origin.

Races are equal because we are a family, from the beginning till the end.

Beginner the God and with her end, brings us ours.

It is not a new faith.

It is the truth.

It is one of my research article that some of you may find new, others may not.

I wonder if anyone is Christians and muslims which have come across my posts these few months,

Maybe I have amazed you, Maybe I have failed you.

The physical existence should have ended the debates of the existence of the God, but it did not.

Imaginations causes illusions. Philosophers should not discussing their dreams.

Philosophy can be real.

Lies must kill, Truth may save.

My scientific proof of the God will bring new definitions of lives.

Thus, it give us new directions of science.

I am pushing this message on internet. Soon everyone will find it to be a matter of urgent.

It relates to the "life cycles" of the planet which you may come across in the passage below.

Below is the first version of my discovery.

It need further proof by science.

You can check the research in my online portfolio. My discussions in online forums may help you to understand more about these ideas. You are recommended to read the discussions section, since I spend most of the time eleborating ideas on net.


http://teru-wong.yolasite.com/resources/Similarity%20of%20Lives.pdf

Thank you for the tolerations from moderators and administrators.

I hope it will be a rational debate in this fourm.


Teru Wong

 

[Tomperi]

1. The presence of water does not indicate the presence of life, it merely indicates a possibility of life as we know it. So far we haven't found any extraterrestrial life anywhere in the universe.

2.Stars and planets do not have genders or a will, they are just a collection of substances on which things such as life can exist.

3. The things we have done on earth have hardly affected the eco-system at all. Climate change was occurring long before we got here.

4. The planets haven't gone through any reproduction. They are the result of objects in a protoplanetary disk becoming denser and developing a gravitational attraction, and thus absorbing material around them and thus growing.

5. Galaxies and such are not eco-systems, they are a collection of gravitationally bound objects.


The world really is that black and white...

 

[Teru Wong]

This is not my whole theory.

If you are a scientist, try to read the article below.

It is a new discovery.

The world really is the Earth (the God) and we (offspring).

Applying Biological Concepts into Planets​

There are common characteristics among living things. By comparing them with the Earth, we will have a more concrete idea on how the eco-system (the “life-cycles” inside the planets) works. Thus, we can apply the biological concepts on the Earth to find out the validity of my hypothesis, “Planets are living objects”. The similarities among living things are clues to the living symptoms of the planets themselves. Planets themselves are alive, although their forms of existences and life expectancies are different from the living organisms inside. In fact, forms of existences vary among living things.

Other planets in our solar system are the “control experiments” of the Earth. The cross-references in-between the Earth and other planets (i.e. the Mars) will definitely contribute to breakthrough in our cosmology. My research will help us to find out the principles of natural mechanisms in our universe. The ages of the planets are obstacles in their comparisons. The aging of the planets is inevitable. The key elements are their ages. The end of the “life-cycles” of the planets resulted in extinctions of all living things inside the planets. The interchanges of chemical particles are almost unobservable in these planets because of their “life-cycles” have come to the end. Thus, the symptoms of lives and evidences of civilizations have been demolished by unknown causes on or before the end of their “life-cycles”. The ages of planets are rough speculations by the scientists only.

To begin with, I am going to put the focus on evaluating the Earth with biological theories in order to find out the similarities in-between the Earth and other living things. The applications of the biological theories on the Earth (e.g. reproduction) are essential. My hypothesis comes across various scientific subjects. Due to my limitations in the professionals for all of them, reviews on other scientific research are necessary. I am taking up this research as a lifetime project. Definitions of Living Things are controversial and closed associated with my hypothesis. The principle of “lives in different levels” is different from the “evolution of species”. Planets are conscious objects. In which, she (the God) is thinking in a unity. Her forms of presences take the lead in my hypothesis.

First, the “reconstruction” of the definitions of living things is my first approach. Plants (natural vegetations) acts like the organs inside our bodies. They are organic living tissues, so they cannot be defined as living things. Thus, definitions of living things have to be modified. Two branches come first in the definitions of living things: (1) Animals (2) Plants. Under my hypothesis, the Earth is a conscious living object. Plants are responsible for the interchanges of chemicals inside her body. They carried out the processes of “photosynthesis” which are necessary for her “life-cycles”. In which, their functions are necessary for maintaining the “life-cycles” of the Earth. They are not conscious. However,“animals” are her offspring. They are conscious. Therefore, “animals” are ‘living things”. Hence, the definitions of the living things changed. Plants are not conscious. They are only organic living tissues inside a planet, but the planet itself is CONCIOUS. Consciousness is the prerequisite for the definitions of living things. “Animals” are the offspring of the planet. They are conscious. Plants are not conscious because they are only the organic living tissues of the Earth. If the Earth is conscious, consciousness will become the ONLY definition of living things. Microorganisms are living tissues of the Earth. The planets are full of microorganisms when they are still alive, while there are not living organisms or microorganisms left after their life cycles have come to an end.

Second, the evaluation on the “evolution” is another approach. The combination of the theories of “evolution” will definitely help to explain the diversifications of the species. The Earth is the candle as well as the origin of lives. The activities of her offspring are influential to her “life-cycles”. The complexity of lives may have cohesions or even in the same progress of the “life-cycles” of our Earth. The simplicity of lives appeared in the beginning has gradually turned out to be much more complex forms of lives nowadays. The extinctions of all species must take place in the end of the “life-cycles” of the planets. The diversification of species in the beginning and it gradually turns out to be the extinctions of all species. Our civilization is one of the major triggers for the disturbances in the “life-cycle” of our planet. The cohesiveness in-between the “evolutions and extinctions of species” and the “live-cycles” of the planet need further researches.Under my hypothesis, planets carry out reproductions inside their bodies. To be more specific, the “evolution and extinction of species” may act as both the “life-cycles” and “reproductions” of the Earth. In the meantime, it proves the Earth has undergone a process of growth. She “grows” from simplicity into complex forms of lives. This approach aims at improving my hypothesis. Evolution is a process of “growth” of the Earth. It is a continuous process in her “life-cycles”. The Earth grow from simple into more complex forms of lives by both her reproduction (offspring) and her living tissues (plants). The transformation is the growth of the planet itself. It is a new idea in science.

I am going to develop my hypothesis in the directions above.

Teru Wong

 

[Pabst]

are you serious?

i'm not trying to make fun but this just seems like a load of nonsense.

as an atheist i dont question whether god exists, i simply dont believe he exists, in reference to the first line in your first post.

i admire your goal but i think you couldnt be more wrong in your assertions.

good luck to you anyway.

 

[Tomperi]

To me it seems like this is all a load of nonsense. But if you're so sure about your hypothesis, maybe you should try and publish it in the peer-reviewed journals, and after that fails, maybe you could start your own religion?

 

[kelvin070]

You should be a pastor and start a chain of churches. Don't foget to list it in the New York Stock Exchange.

 

[Pabst]

To me it seems like this is all a load of nonsense. But if you're so sure about your hypothesis, maybe you should try and publish it in the peer-reviewed journals, and after that fails, maybe you could start your own religion?

the world doesnt need another L ron hubbard. in fact im sure if another one popped up the universe itself may very well implode from it.

 

[Tomperi]

the world doesnt need another L ron hubbard. in fact im sure if another one popped up the universe itself may very well implode from it.

Or a new Peoples Temple... Although, morons like they self-erase rather quickly..

 

[Pabst]

please dear god no more jim jones types!!!!

one was horrible enough.

 

[Codrus]

oh com on...the cool-aid wasnt that bad...kinda tasy actually.

i'de rather have the ones that kill themselves off istead of the jim and tammys of the world

YouTube - suicidal tendencies - send me your money

 

[Pabst]

i'd rather have none of them.

i'm an atheist but i also recognize that these kinds of people give religion a bad name. i personally dont have a negative view of religion because of the jim jones or the jim bakers in this world but many do as a result of these people and it's sad.

 

[Codrus]

like lesbians...i dont believe in athiests

but i do like your sig:thumbup

 

[Tomperi]

The cults are not the only ones giving a bad name to religion. All the hardcore conservative Christians and Muslims are doing that to..

 

[Pabst]

The cults are not the only ones giving a bad name to religion. All the hardcore conservative Christians and Muslims are doing that to..

i dont think its conservative christians as it is the whacked out conservative christians. the ones who protest outside of an abortion clinic and then shoot the doctors performing the abortions. one thing to protest, another to kill people. i cant imagine god would be ok with that. his judgment over what people do, if i understand this correctly, is his divine providence and his alone. only he can judge and punish, not people.

so i guess that would be the hardcore among them. i called them whackjobs. they're out of their minds.

the phelps's and their god hates fags rhetoric...more whackos in need of a straight jacket.

 

[Codrus]

now dont go draggin guns into the Cod debate

 

[Pabst]

now dont go draggin guns into the Cod debate

how about i just mention the bombings then? cuz they've done those too.

 

[Codrus]

still gettin off the Cod debate

 

[Tomperi]

 

[Teru Wong]

The presence of the God is actually a Conscious Earth.

Put the religious problem aside.

If planets are conscious living objects (as I stated in my hypothesis), the reserves of resources of the Earth is scared. The pollutions of the Earth will threaten the survival our civilizations, since the regeneration of the Earth is not infinite. Activities of the animals (offspring) affect its life cycles.

In the meantime, other planets have their life cycles come to an end.

Reputations built on the nonsense of the people at the time being.

The God is our mother-in-common in biological prospective. She may not be someone we want.

Teru Wong

 

[MoonOwl]

Don't worry, She'll shake we leeches off Her back when She's had enough of us fouling our home.....